What Hasn’t Been Said
I have a piece for the Prospect about the narrow range of issues that have been discussed at the presidential debates:
And perhaps the biggest dog that hasn’t barked is LBGT rights. In in a sense, this is a sign of social progress—even five years ago, the idea that a president could come out in favor of same-sex marriage and have it be almost entirely ignored during the subsequent election campaign would have seemed ludicrously implausible. Nonetheless, this progress certainly does not reflect a bipartisan consensus, and voters should be allowed to examine the positions of the candidates. How can Romney and Ryan justify their opposition to the repeal of DADT? Should the Defense of Marriage Act be considered constitutional? Are bans on same-sex marriage consistent with the Constitution’s mandate that states provide equal protection of the laws? These are important questions that haven’t received a second of consideration during one of the few times in which large numbers of Americans focus on political questions.
Of course, the remarkable transformation in public opinion on LBGT rights is also an excellent example of the fact that social change generally doesn’t come from the top-down, so it’s not clear how much this matters. But it’s interesting that Obama’s endorsement has barely come up during the campaign. It also makes me more skeptical than ever that pro-SSM litigation created a counterproductive backlash, but with Michael Klarman’s new book having arrived I’ll get to that later in the week.
Oy. Once again, Obama did not come out in favor of same sex marriage; he came out in favor of letting states decide the issue. Saying those positions is the same is, to borrow from the Vice President, malarkey. Not being opposed to same sex marriage as a policy matter is different than supporting it as a policy matter, which in turn is different than recognizing it as a constitutional right.
Same sex marriage hasn’t come up as an issue because the Obama campaign doesn’t want it as an issue, and that’s because Obama still isn’t really supportive or comfortable on gay rights issues. Repealing DADT was a matter of military readiness to him, not a matter of rights, and his milquetoast position on gay marriage was a sadly successful attempt to call off the hounds on the left.
Seriously?
+Several
You seriously believe otherwise?
If you believe Obama meant what he said rather than what people wish he’d said then he said same sex marriage should be left to the states exceedingly straight-forwardly. It would be nice if Obama’s supporters stopped believing that Obama says what they want him to say rather than what he actually says.
L.O.L.
Others have admirably commented on the gay marriage issue, but the contention that “repealing DADT was a matter of military readiness to [Obama], not rights,” is just outright nonsense.
Is his administration pushing the courts to change sexual orientation to “heightened scrutiny” which will lessen state discretion also a matter of federalism?
And, what part of “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” is so complicated?
I continue to think some on BOTH sides aren’t really members of the so-called “reality community.” The near comical attempt to belittle the Obama Administration’s advancement of “gay rights issues” (not just SSM, mind you) is a sad case in point.
Ya, but he didn’t put his crown on, raise his staff, and decree gay marriage to be legal in all the land, so what the fuck has he done, really?
If he really cared about LBGT rights, he would have ended DADT through an executive order that could be rescinded on day 1 of a Romney administration rather than through legislation that has no chance of being repealed. Everyone knows that!
He could not end DADT with an executive order, becasue it had been put in place by a statute.
NUH-UH, ‘CAUSE THE PREZNIT CAN DO ANYTHING WITH HIS POWERS AND STUFF
WHYYY WON’T YOU LET ME HATE THE PREZNIT?!?!?!
Reconciling it with one’s determination to never, ever acknowledge that President Obama has done anything good.
Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage. His explicit words were “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” That’s not saying that same-sex marriage should be a Constitutional right, (which would be nice) but it’s not merely “coming out in favor of letting states decide the matter” either. He’s supporting it. Just because he hasn’t been willing to call it a constitutional right doesn’t mean he’s not in favor of it.
Yeah if you want to raise an issue, you can raise an issue. Obama and Biden could’ve touted their support for LGBTI rights. Same with another charged issue where there’s a real difference: torture.
Meh, that only works if you think there’s anything to gain by highlighting it, which there probably isn’t.
Exactly — neither candidate think it’s in his political interest to highlight the difference.
Which is a) almost certainly correct for both candidates, b) major progress for LGBT rights over where we were two cycles ago.
Certain issues go through a period in which the public punishes anyone who brings them up – on either side – for being “extreme” or “divisive.”
Oy. Once again, Obama did not come out in favor of same sex marriage; he came out in favor of letting states decide the issue.
No. He came out in favor of same-sex marriage. He buttressed with some federalist rhetoric which is meaningful if you think Congress is going to pass legislation mandating national SSM but in the real world isn’t.
It would be nice if Obama’s supporters stopped believing that Obama says what they want him to say rather than what he actually says.
Let me get this straight. You dismiss the DADT repeal based on evidence-free mind-reading, and ignore the refusal to defend the constitutionality of DOMA entirely, but the people who actually pay attention to his policy record refuse to look at evidence. Right.
Once again, Obama did not come out in favor of same sex marriage; he came out in favor of letting states decide the issue.
This nonsense again. Marriage law is state law. To a first approximation, at least, gay marriage has to be a state law question.
Same sex marriage hasn’t come up as an issue because the Obama campaign doesn’t want it as an issue
Really? He can stop Romney and Ryan from bringing it up as an issue?
No, he can’t stop them, but Romney and Ryan don’t want to bring it up, either – at least not on national television. They’ll do it on the downlow, via direct mail, etc.
Public opinion has shifted remarkably, but not so far that either side sees any political profit in using a megaphone.
Obama has done well on LBGT issues but not without considerable pressure, financial and otherwise, from the outside, not least Obama’s donors. Which is fine, applying pressure to push the President and bellyaching for what you want is what activists should do.
So if the Obama campaign does not want it to come up, why has the Romney campaign NOT brought
it up, and apparently to their benefit?
Laser like focus on the economy?
Yes. Because the economy is Romney’s only point of strength insofar as he has such a thing and because emphasizing opposition to gay marriage may alienate the independents/undecideds he is courting, who may not be crazy for gay people but aren’t hopped up against gay marriage, either. There are a fair number of Republicans who would like the issue to go away as well, at least once it’s done its work firing up the base. So the campaign will get the message out to targeted voters and try to steer clear of the issue in front of a broader audience. And unless Obama feels the need to gin up his base, he will be following the same line of thought, although not to the same degree.
LBGT may not be a national issue, but the GOP is still using it as a big “wedge” issue at local level. At a craft fair on Saturday in Mount Vernon TX, I found the Franklin County Republican Party, with a big placard containing their answers to the question “Are you a Republican?”. #1 was “If you think that marriage is between a man and a woman, you are a Republican”…
Is anyone surprised that Republicans in the middle of nowhere East Texas are still anti-gay?
No, but I was amused that they put it at #1 on their “Are You A Republican” Q&A chart. #2 was “If you think that Abortion is wrong, you are a Republican”. To call the list superficial and cartoonish understates its sheer vacuuousness and mean-spirited malevolence. Couple that with their yard sign “Let’s Vote For the real American” and you have a pretty toxic stew.
The effects of their campaign against education and critical thinking are apparently doing a good job if these slogans are catching on!
I saw the same signs in Cleveland.
Clearly the R’s think that this issue will win them votes.
Similarly, I have enjoyed for over a month a billboard on I4 in Orlando, FL, that boldly states, “Obama supports abortion and gay marriage. Do you?” Well…yeah.
Whoops. Sorry, Brian.
Just got home from Michigan. A big billboard told me “Obama supports abortion and gay marriage. Do you? Vote Republican.” So I guess that doesn’t count?
Same sign in Toledo, OH. Obviously, Republicans know that’s still a winning message with part of their base. But Repubs are pushing those issues less than they did, say, in 2004.
Carmon is correct that seeing abortion as a primarily religious issue is problematic.
I understand what the article is saying but for many on both sides (see, e.g., the pro-choice Abortion Myth) this is ultimately a moral choice. That is why it is so wrong to selectively impose limits based on religious beliefs. It is important to show that religious freedom works both ways on this issue. Same with same sex marriage etc.
Of course, it is MORE than religion, also health and equality. OTOH, I think there it was a special case because of the religious faith of the candidates here. Biden’s position highlights how personal opposition should not result in public policy. The difference needs to be continuously highlighted.
But it’s still dumb to frame the question in terms of what politicians “personally feel” about abortion. It doesn’t really matter, and it’s playing on Republican terrain.
Exactly–the point is not how you or I feel about abortion–the point is, whose feelings ought to get enforced by law.
Right. But, I was specifically concerned about the “religious issue” thing. There, the right to make a choice based on personal faith and belief is something many pro-choice people focus on. For many, e.g., thinking it wrong to have a child they can’t care for is why they think they should have the choice to abort. We should not consider it a one way deal no more than “value voting.”
Abortion is no more a specifically “religious” issue than anything else. When someone asks Paul Ryan how he can square his proposed economic policies with Catholic social doctrine we can talk.
The first and second things aren’t the same. And, abortion very well is much more religious than many issues. I already said it wasn’t merely religious. But, other than a matter of woman’s roles, the core thing that divides here are basic religious questions about life. It is a basic reason why it is so divisive. The same is not true about every odd policy issue.
abortion very well is much more religious than many issues.
Why? Because some religious people say so?
Why can’t you just ask for clarification instead of gratuitously offering some shoddy suggestion?
I have been influenced by various people who have so argued. Justice Stevens, e.g., in Webster and Cruzan noted how abortion and euthanasia issues usually turn on maters of conscience.
Ronald Dworkin in Life’s Dominion and Freedom’s Law has also discussed the matter.
Overall, abortion like questions of life, death, birth, marriage etc. has in public and personal debates been particularly tied to questions of the sacred, ultimate questions that generally are tired to religious sentiments etc.
I also cited Leslie Cannold’s Abortion Myth which discusses from a pro-choice frame how abortion is particularly a matter of personal morality, which often turns on religion in ways such as other things do not.
Why can’t you just ask for clarification instead of gratuitously offering some shoddy suggestion?
Because I can be kind of an asshole, and some days are worse than others.
Mal will be my designated spokesmodel going forward.
Mal will be my designated spokesmodel going forward.
Please tell me that you are not expecting me to refrain from being an asshole.
Please tell me that you are not expecting me to refrain from being an asshole.
Fair enough. You seem to be having a better day than I am. We’ll see how it goes.
What else would make an issue more religious, if not religiously-motivated beliefs about that issue?
Is there a way for non-religious people to test claims like “this is more a religious issue than most others” other than taking the word of the religious people who make it?
Is there a way for non-cats to test claims that “this is a cat food cats like” other than the responses of cats?
No, there isn’t, because the opinion of the cats is the sole determinant of whether cats like something.
Just as the religiously-motivated activism of religious people is the sole determinant of whether an issue is a religious issue.
I assume that Hogan’s problem is that since many of the “pro-lifers” are inconsistent in which religious beliefs they seek to legislate, how can we trust that they are motivated by religion rather than misogyny?
But since religion is either the motivation or the pretext, it appears to be a distinction without a difference.
Is there a way for non-religious people to test claims like “this is more a religious issue than most others” other than taking the word of the religious people who make it?
Well, we could read the Bible, which says a who lot about how we should treat the poor, and rather little about how we should meddle in ladyparts-business. But that method would force us to ponder the idea that ladyparts-meddling is not actually motivated by the Bible.
No, there isn’t, because the opinion of the cats is the sole determinant of whether cats like something.
This is certainly definitive in cases where all or most cats agree. My experience with both cats and religious people is that those cases are not common.
As if the people we disagree with don’t read the Bible. As if, taking the example of abortion, they aren’t a great deal more likely to read the Bible than we are.
Religious people who get it all wrong are just as religious as those who get it right.
Hogan,
The religious people on one side of a question are just as religious as the religious people on the other side of a question.
How many religious wars have been fought with devout believers on both sides? The issue of whether Spain should be Catholic or Muslim was a religious issue for both sides.
As if, taking the example of abortion, they aren’t a great deal more likely to read the Bible than we are.
You think I have not ready the entire Bible several times over?
I think there are a lot more people in the “we” that supports abortion rights than just you, Mal. One uses probabilities like “more likely to” when discussing a population.
The religious people on one side of a question are just as religious as the religious people on the other side of a question.
“This is a religious issue” can mean “this is an issue on which religious people have views based on their religious beliefs, which can vary widely.” I don’t think that’s the usual meaning in US political discourse, although Kali knows I wish it was. I think the more common meaning is something between “This is an issue on which religious people’s views should be accorded special weight” and “This is an issue on which all religious people agree with me, and that should be the deciding factor.” And somewhere in that range are the Catholic bishops saying “We want credit for opposing the death penalty because that builds our credibility on the abortion issue, but we won’t do anything to make the death penalty go away.”
Certainly people should be able to decide their views on political issues based on their religious commitments and have those views given as much respect as anyone else’s. But only as much.
But, other than a matter of woman’s roles, the core thing that divides here are basic religious questions about life.
Same it true on the death penalty, yet that gets a pass.
Gets a pass in what sense?
There is a religious component to the DP, but the public debate on the subject is repeatedly much less religious in scope.
I’m all for not giving people a pass here but crime in general isn’t as much of a concern in the national election than abortion. So, it makes more sense to ask about that in the debate.
Gets a pass in what sense?
Both are against religious doctrine. Yet abortion, and now contraception, is “controversial” is a way that the death penalty is not. So, in that sense.
And if crime is not a concern, then why do we need the massive irrational overreaction which the death penalty is?
I’d say they’re basic philosophical questions, and questions about the beginnings of human existence don’t seem much more inherently religious than any other topic. The Bible is far more explicit about its opinion on usury than its opinion on abortion, but finance remains a fairly secular topic in political discussion.
Of course, on a more emotional level, matters of birth can get people feeling somewhat “spiritual” so it’s understandable that people are interested in what religion has to say on the matter. But still, religion is just one voice.
Plus, it’s not like religion is entirely other-worldly on the matter. Although anti-abortion attitudes have roots in old ideas, a lot of religious opposition to abortion is due to religious organizations being influenced by the larger secular conversation about abortion. Not necessarily as a cynical matter of politicking, but as more worldly social conservatives took stances on the topic of abortion it’s inevitable that conservative religious organizations would follow.
I gotta be honest, I’ve always found this to be bullshit.
If you think that something is a legitimate area of public policy, your personal beliefs on the matter should decide what policy gets made. That’s the JOB of policymakers. My personal belief is that in the richest country in the world people shouldn’t die in emergency rooms of treatable diseases, and I vote for people who also have this as a personal belief so they can implement it.
Similarly, my personal belief is that legalized abortion is good public policy, and I vote for people who have the same belief so they can implement it.
Biden is, basically, in favor of abortion rights. He can natter about ‘personal opposition’ all he wants. He’s either lying or deluded.
While conceding that as regards abortion distinctions like Biden’s are almost always only rhetorical, I don’t see where you’re coming from here. Congressmen who think it’s wrong to cheat on their spouses should favor criminalizing such behavior? Am I duty-bound to favor Bloomberg’s soda thing because I think soda’s not very healthy?
Congressmen who thinks its wrong to cheat on their spouses and think that is an area of legitimate public policymaking should, in fact, favor criminalizing such behavior.
If they think the government shouldn’t have any kind of opinion on the matter, then their personal beliefs don’t matter.
Bloomberg’s soda thing is trickier. The health of the general populace is, in fact, a legitimate area of public policymaking, I think. So his soda thing is not, on its face, illegitimate.
Whether or not it is good policy is another matter. And Bloomberg isn’t saying ‘Well, I think soda is awesome, but I’m going to restrict the amount you can order all at once because my personal beliefs shouldn’t be made into public policy.’
Not all areas of legitimate public policymaking are areas of legitimate use of criminal law (as opposed to other, softer, measures).
In any case, the whole point, which you are sidestepping is that if you think a topic is an area of legitimate public policymaking, then your beliefs on that topic are not merely “personal” anymore. They are political.
The whole reason why many people don’t want to impose their personal views on abortion is that they don’t think the individual decision to abort is a legitimate area of public policymaking–and certainly not through use of criminal law, rather than softer forms of government power.
If they think the government shouldn’t have any kind of opinion on the matter, then their personal beliefs don’t matter.
Well, that’s pretty much what Biden said, except the question also asked for his personal beliefs, so he had to discuss those too before pivoting to the “government shouldn’t be deciding this”.
This doesn’t hold up.
I run 10 miles a week, does that mean if I was elected everyone should be required by law to run 10 miles a week because my personal belief is it’s great for your health?
There has to be room for personal choice. And that’s the main purpose of being pro-choice on abortion. I wouldn’t get an abortion (well, if I was a woman), but I also don’t think it’s my business if someone else does.
Isn’t this the founding principle of America?
I do take issue with if I believe someone should be able to get an abortion, but it is made illegal because they’re taking away the choice.
Just FYI, if you were a woman faced with a pregnancy you can’t afford, you might feel differently about this.
Depends. Do you think the legitimate interest the government has in ensuring a healthy populace should extend as far as forcing people to jog a mandatory amount every week?
If so, yes, you should in fact try and implement that if you ever come to power.
It is absolutely your business as a citizen.
Reproductive health is an important issue, and government resources are expended on it. Whether those resources are expended, and in what amount, or not expended at all, is determined by the beliefs of the people who control the government, who in turn are picked by voters.
This is just a restatement of the question that Cody asked, which is:
Your “answer” provided no further reasoning or information.
And the obvious answer is no–Cody doesn’t think, and most people wouldn’t think, that the governmental interest in a healthy populace is enough to justify such an invasive law. Similar to how people feel on abortion, incidentally.
Yeah, no. Reproductive health is an important issue. Dictating an individual’s choice to abort, or not abort, is not a public issue at all. “Reproductive health” is important because people should be empowered to make informed choices, not because we want to mandate one choice.
Biden is, basically, in favor of abortion rights. He can natter about ‘personal opposition’ all he wants. He’s either lying or deluded.
Or he simply understands that he has no right to impose his personal belief, founded in religion, upon other people of different religions.
That doesn’t make sense.
If I have a strong personal belief in social justice that is founded in Catholic dogma, are you saying I shouldn’t try and fight for said social justice using legislative means, because it would be wrong to impose my personal religious views on people of other religions?
When you have two beliefs in conflict, the stronger one wins.
If I have a strong belief in letting people be adults and make their own decisions but I also have a strong belief that abortion is a horrible thing that people shouldn’t choose it, then I’m going to be in conflict with at least one of my strong beliefs no matter what choice I make.
Biden’s belief in personal liberty might very well override his position that abortion is wrong.
Or it could also be that Joe Biden – like every other grown up in the country who has actually grappled with this issue and/or has had to deal with it personally – knows that there’s more nuance around it than what you can fit into an answer in a political debate forum that will be rebroadcast as 30-snippet segments taken out of context to beat him around the head with for the next month.
Because really – my personal belief is that nobody should ever be in the position where they have to make a choice to get an abortion. We should have the resources to commit to a utopian world where sex education is universal, contraception is free, and in order to get pregnant you have to make an active decision to get pregnant instead of the other way around. But try to explain that kind of techno-socialist utopia in a 30 second sound bite.
Which would mean, I guess, that although Biden accepts the teachings of his church on abortion, he also accepts that others may not believe the same and accordingly women should be free to commit what Biden believes is murder. I guess the man has to say what he has to say in an election year, but that sounds just as odd as Ryan’s position (as stated during the debate) that it should be left to the states to decide whether baby killing is okay.
Piss-poor analogy. A fight for social justice helps people and grants people more rights, whereas the criminalization of abortion takes away a woman’s right to control her own body. Impacting another person’s liberty and constitutional right to privacy on account of your own personal religious beliefs is not the same as helping people on account of your personal religious beliefs.
Both of those things are true, but I question how germane they are. You’ve moved from ‘your personal beliefs shouldn’t play a role in policymaking’ to ‘it’s okay to let your personal beliefs play a role in policymaking as long as you believe they’re helping people.’
Actually, I’ve moved from government officials shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs on others to government officials shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs on others.
I disagree that Biden is nattering here. He is making a very sensible distinction. He doesn’t like abortion or telling women what to do. How is that unusual or (as described below) merely rhetorical?
I could very well believe that abortion is wrong and also believe I have no right to interfere with someone else’s choices — and in particular women, whose lives and circumstance I cannot know.
Biden’s is, among Catholics, the most common position out there. I don’t see anything mysterious or remarkable about that.
I think it’s a mistake to confuse what comes out of the candidates’ mouths with what’s at issue in a presidential campaign. Especially on the right, there are all kinds of just-under-the-surface issues that are used to rally the base but which the candidates on a presidential ticket intentionally steer clear of.
I agree it’s a sign of real social progress on this issue that LBGT rights seems to have become one of these issues (especially in a cycle in which the Democratic Party finally has its platform more-or-less openly in the right place on this issue).
But as a number of commentators upthread have noted, there’s plenty of gay-bashing going on around the country in local appeals to get folks to vote Romney / Ryan.
Climate change too — have they talked about that? I don’t think so except to debate whether Obama was digging for enough oil.
The GOP here in Texas uses that as a wedge issue also…their cunning wording makes it sound like they are the only party advocating drilling for oil on American soil. As for climate change…I don’t think they mention it, because, after all, it is one of those librul conspiracies.
Forgive my bias but “biggest dog?”
How about housing policy? Or, rather, utter lack thereof.
I’m curious, Scott; are you skeptical there was a backlash at ALL, or merely that said backlash was counterproductive?
It seems pretty clear that pro-SSM litigation did promote a backlash. Without a big push for gay rights you don’t get the massive arrays of states explicitly writing ‘We Hate Fags’ into their constitutions, simply because nobody cares enough to do so.
Whether that backlash actually set the cause BACK is another matter.
My skepticism is about 1)whether litigation produces more backlash than any other form of policy change, and 2)whether the backlash made the strategy a net negative.
Ah. These are indeed areas to be rightly skeptical about; if I recall correctly the fear of backlash has been the bugaboo of civil rights pushes for… well… forever. You had people who thought it wasn’t the right time for Brown v. Board, for example.
I think litigation backlash is something that gets additional psychological weight in peoples minds because of the ongoing right-wing project, now approaching its century mark, to de-legitimize judicial decisions they disagree with. We wouldn’t necessarily have gotten less backlash as a result of legislative action rather than judicial, but a lot of people accept the (very modern) framing that judicial decisions somehow aren’t ‘real’, that they carry less weight and less legitimacy.
1. There is a difference between the poltical opinions, like Obama supporting the government-subdidization of more forms of affection that are facially incapable of leading to organic procreation, and political policies, like the president not going out of his way for a Genderless Marriage Act by which the entire country would subsidize these types of affection.
2. I should remark that I support same-sex marriage because it seems very important to LGBT people etc.
3. HOWEVER, there are people who are full of fear and anger at everything that is not like themselves. If a question is asked about LGBT issues, they will rail about how it is trivial and fringe and then, despite their earlier claims that is trivial and unimportant, be full of anger at the people who are pro-LGBT for daring to distract from the important issues directly affecting the lives of the complainers themselves.
4. This post does not make a lot of sense, but it is good enough.
Isn’t the acceptance of SSM in the African American community an example of both top-down social change and a single speech affecting public opinion?
Unpossible! Speeches don’t affect public opinion! [/snark]
Political beliefs are transmitted by midichlorians.
Silly. Everyone knows they’re transmitted by coaxial cable (but only from certain special locations).
So, just to be clear, you’re bringing up an issue on which the president has not, in fact, significantly affected public opinion in defense of the BULLY PULPIT thesis? Fascinating.
Nor used the bully pulpit. He answered a question in an interview.
Significantly affected? Take it up with this guy from your linked thread:
I’ve already discussed this, but it’s well understood that presidential position-taking tends to increase support for positions among supporters (and reduce support among opponents.)
supporters != the public.
If, as Scott wrote, rhetoric increases support among your base, and increases opposition among your opponents’ base, then you haven’t significantly affected public opinion.
Of course you have. If you clarify your positions, and your base follows, how is that not a significant effect? At least they then know what to argue when talking at the water cooler.
Because it gets cancelled out by the equal-but-opposite effect of your opponents’ base moving away from your position.
I guess you could describe increasing the intensity with which both sides hold their opinions as an effect, but I question how significant that is.
I would never argue that public opinion is only or even primarily changeable top down, but this fervent belief that the President is powerless to influence people is silly and unsupported. Yes, single speeches almost never change the mean opinion much (except in subgroups with whom the president is popular). But some people do pay attention, and those are the people you rely on to propagate arguments and convince peers, friends and family members. If they know what to argue for and how to argue it, and are given good policies to defend, they will succeed.
In any case, even if you’re right and this is “questionable”, at best your arguments mean the precise positions the president argues for are completely unimportant. So why not try arguing for progressive policy? Can’t hurt, right?
I took this as implicit, but I’m talking about significant net effects. People assumed that Obama was making SSM more popular among the public. But he hasn’t.
Wait, in what community? How does that community feel about the president generally? Compared to the overall population?
Let’s stipulate that SSM has seen a significant gain in acceptance in the African American community since Obama’s public support (I know there was one poll back when the president, but I don’t know whether it’s been supported by more evidence). Consider that alongside your comment in the other thread.
Maybe I’m being dense, mark, but I don’t see a contradiction, and I’m not sure what lesson I’m supposed to learn. You’re going to have to be more explicit.
Presidential rhetoric tends to be effective on people who like & support the president. It tends to have the opposite effect on people who do not. If Barack Obama spent tomorrow night talking about how great ice cream is, Wednesday’s polls would show ice cream to be very controversial.
To highlight one dumb example . . . Gallup or some such organization keeps routine opinion polls on fast food restaurants, broken down along certain demographic lines including partisan identification. Godfather’s Pizza spent most of its history enjoying similar approval ratings with members of each party, just like Burger King and Taco Bell do. Then Herman Cain ran for president, and Gallup found that Republicans all love Godfather’s while Democrats do not.
Hey, I agree with this. Presidents can rally their base around issues of their choosing. What’s the problem?
It also motivates opposition. It works in elections (except when it doesn’t), but its utility in actually legislating is negligible.
Republicans get motivated regardless of Democrats actual positions. Choosing policies in hopes of getting them to stop calling you names is foolhardy and, quite frankly, pathetic.
Tactically, in any given negotiation, it probably does have only a marginal effect, but this is only an argument that public rhetoric doesn’t matter much in the short term, not that it’s harmful.
Hmm, on rereading, I’ve become a little too aggressive (this is the voice I would normally use trolling libertarian sites). My apologies.
Love,
Eggplant
Choosing them in hopes of causing persuadable people not to agree with those calling you names, on the other hand, is Politics 101.
This isn’t 2002. Just because Republicans say things isn’t the end of the story. The general public might, or might not, find the things Republicans say convincing.
I agree again. Not only can presidents rally their base, with well-chosen rhetoric they can persuade fence-sitters, or at least promote arguments that eventually bring people to their side. I happen to think, at least domestically, that progressive positions are very saleable, often more so than the compromised positions of centrists, but at least we agree about the usefulness of the bully pulpit.
You do not agree; you just wrote a non-sequitor.
No, not really. There really isn’t any evidence that rhetoric can do this, and pretty much all of the research done on the topic indicates that the opposite is true. Fence-sitters are not persuaded, in either short or long-term, to adopt a policy position based on the Bully Pulpit.
Your eagerness to believe in the mythical bully pulpit is now leading you to imagine comments agreeing with you.
When did the term “Bully Pulpit” start referring to “choosing positions,” anyway?
Clutching at straws.
Uh… then how do we ever get change?
I mean, people adopt political beliefs, and they often change them, and it seems like political rhetoric plays a role in the long-term evolution of said beliefs. The Republicans have been waging a decades-long war to promulgate conservative views that’s worked very well.
Bottom-up. People listen to the people in their lives. They listen to local officials. They listen to their clergy. They listen to freaking celebrities. They listen to experts with prominent soap boxes in the media.
Political rhetoric does, indeed, play a major role in changing public opinion – just not the rhetoric of high, partisan government officials like presidents and senators.
Take a look at the huge shift on gay marriage over the past 20 years, for instance. That shift owned nothing to the White House bully pulpit – but you’re right, people were sure listening to someone. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to think back over the past two decades and think about who that was.
They have indeed. And how did they do this? They built a “counter-media.” They didn’t sit back and expect Gerald Ford and George Bush to do it for them.
I guess I did misread you. So your claim is that fence-sitters make up their minds based on policy details? That’s a bold stance, and I’m not sure I can agree.
I haven’t made any claim about how fence-sitters make up their minds.
In general, though, I would reject the binary choice “policy details” vs. “rhetoric.”
Ok, then I’ve made two attempts to understand this:
Choosing [policies] in hopes of causing persuadable people not to agree with those calling you names, on the other hand, is Politics 101.
And I still have no idea what you’re trying to say.
The problem is the claim that presidential rhetoric can rally people who are not part of his base.
I’ve never claimed they can rally the opposition to them effectively. I do think if they lead, they can introduce arguments and rhetoric that then influence how their followers talk, and how celebrities and the media and people’s neighbors talk. It’s fairly indirect, but it’s valuable. I note you’re still arguing that it’s at worst not worth doing, not that it’s harmful.
No, but you’ve argued that they can rally fence-sitters. There just isn’t any evidence of this, and plenty of researchers have looked for that evidence. Did you know that support for the Contras decreased every time Ronald Reagan gave a speech about them?
The meme-spreader-in-chief angle is an interesting one, but it’s still the celebrities et al who are moving public opinion, and influencing those opinion leaders is not really a matter of public communication, but of narrow-casting; nor is it a matter of presidential rhetoric being especially persuasive.
I’d love to know what basis you have for thinking assorted celebrities have more influence on people’s thinking than the president.
I appreciate various comments that pushed back on my sentiments. One person called “b.s.” on my remark on Biden’s personal opinions not being public policy.
Yes, personal beliefs always in some fashion influences public policies. But, it has to be of the character that is “public” in nature. I can believe in Christ as my personal savior, but public policy can’t promote this end. It might guide my public policy to the degree “Christian beliefs” can inspire secular ends. See, e.g., MLK.
As to Biden’s position on abortion, I don’t know what is in his heart, but many people have personal beliefs about abortion or marriage or who to have a relationship with. They think such and such is the best path. But, they believe in free choice there in part because they know the limitations of human knowledge.
I don’t see the “b.s.” myself.
It’s depressing that this needs to be explained here, of all places.
Why do we call ourselves “pro-choice?” Why do you push back when the anti-choicers call us “pro-aborts?” For that matter, why do we call them “anti-choice?”
Your point is one that should be obvious to liberals.
In respect to one reply, “religious” need not be self-defined. The term has a certain objective meaning (various academics etc. have provided discussions; Dworkin just gave a series of lectures that might be of interest, but I just cite him as an example) & the “non-religious” can give it a go.
Malaclypse Both are against religious doctrine. Yet abortion, and now contraception, is “controversial” is a way that the death penalty is not. So, in that sense.
The DP continues to be a matter of controversy, including in CA. The anti-woman (which I referenced) angle does influence things some as does the fact few people are executed relatively while the average person uses BC, aborts etc. OTOH, the federal government executed three people since 1963. CA 13 since the 1970s.
And if crime is not a concern, then why do we need the massive irrational overreaction which the death penalty is?
It isn’t “as much” of a concern. In fact, the death penalty is not a major concern generally as abortion etc. which underlines why so many don’t really care that except in the “death belt,” nearly no one actually is executed, being outraged now and then, but not doing much at all while the DP is nearly never applied in most areas. It is still “a concern,” so there is some overreaction. But, unlike in the past, crime isn’t really a big issue in this national election cycle.
In fact, the death penalty is not a major concern generally as abortion etc.
Yes, that was, in fact, my point. Central to it, even.